Klamath Falls, OR – A billion-dollar settlement deal for water and land rights in southern Oregon's Klamath Basin has been made public after more than a year of difficult discussions – but it doesn't say anything about an issue that set off the debate, removal of four dams on the Klamath River.

A partial agreement by the Klamath Settlement Group among 26 parties including counties, farms, tribes and other stakeholders appears to be as controversial as the negotiations that led up to it.

Sean Stevens, spokesperson for the conservation group Oregon Wild, says it looks like a better deal for commercial farms than for fish or wildlife in the Klamath Basin. Stevens explains that, instead of getting rid of dams, the plan leases National Wildlife Refuge land for commercial farming for another 50 years, and guarantees minimum amounts of water for irrigation, but not for fish, particularly the salmon runs on the Klamath.

"Because of its huge $1 billion price tag, and because it doesn't do anything to solve the underlying issues – lease-land farming and water flows for fish – this plan is going to put dam removal at risk."

PacificCorp, which owns the dams, was not included in the negotiations and says it has not determined the fate of the dams. Oregon Wild and another state-based conservation group also were excluded from the talks. Some of the participating groups have said they won't sign the agreement unless it includes more protection for native fish.

Stevens also wonders why, without dam removal, the plan would cost so much, and who will pay for it?

"Where's that billion-dollar price tag going to come from? If you live outside the Klamath, your tax dollars are going to go towards funding these special interests – and not protecting the national wildlife refuges that we all own."

The agreement can be viewed online, at www.edsheets.com/klamathdocs.html.




get more stories like this via email

The state Department of Natural Resources and Iowa State University are looking for volunteers to help create a new Bumble Bee Atlas.

Bees are an important part of the ecosystem, and scientists are figuring out their habitats to help them thrive.

Iowa is home to at least 14 species of bumble bees that help pollinate native wildflowers and flowering crops in farm fields and backyard gardens.

Iowa State University University Professor of Sustainable Agriculture and plant pathologist Matt O'Neal said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed several bee species as endangered.

"And that includes the Rusty Patch bumble bee," said O'Neal, "20% of what it used to be, and that includes parts of Iowa. There is also evidence that other bumble species are in decline and so, this survey will give us a chance to see where those bees are and how abundant they are."

With that information, O'Neal said scientists can work to protect the bees' habitats and create Iowa's Bumble Bee Atlas.

It's part of a larger project to map the bees and foster bee development nationwide. Sign up online to volunteer.

The national project is part of a collaboration with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Some 900 people have volunteered for the national atlas project, and counted more than 20,000 bumble bees - which O'Neal said face several major threats.

"Pesticide exposure, parasite and pathogens," said O'Neal, "and then the last 'P,' and probably the most important, is poor forage."

The researchers will work to alleviate those threats by knowing where the bees are.

Volunteers have discovered species thought to be gone from their states, contributed to new field guides, and improved scientists' understanding of bumble bee populations across the country.




get more stories like this via email

A coalition of conservation groups has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for refusing to relist wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies is part of the suit. The Alliance sued to successfully overturn the wolf's delisting in 2012 but the move fell victim to congressional funding bill negotiations.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the alliance, said the wolves clearly qualify to be protected under the Act and hunting is driving down their numbers, which could cause problems for the animals.

"As their numbers decline, they are at greater risk for inbreeding," Garrity pointed out. "Once inbreeding sets in, the population is sunk."

Livestock and cattle owners argued wolves are a threat to their flocks and herds and want their numbers reduced. The suit was filed in federal District Court in Missoula.

Beyond keeping a robust population of wolves on Montana's lands and helping their species thrive, Garrity noted wolves can also help reduce the population of diseased animals.

"We're starting to have disease in deer, such as Chronic Wasting Disease," Garrity explained. "Predators like wolves are really good at focusing on the sick animals, so that's an excellent way to control Chronic Wasting Disease."

Garrity added wolf management policies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, all of which allow aggressive hunting of the animals, fail to protect wolves and all native species for future generations, the primary mandate of the Endangered Species Act.

A lawsuit over a federal agency's decision not to boost wolf protections in New Mexico and other western states has been filed, days after video surfaced showing the torture of a captured wolf.

According to accounts, a Wyoming man ran the wolf down with a snowmobile in late February, disabling it. He then took it to a local bar and posed for photos before shooting it.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said federal protections under the Endangered Species Act are essential because there are still those who don't respect wildlife.

"That's why wolves were driven extinct in the first place, is because these types of people were the ones who controlled the public policy discussion throughout much of the 20th century when wolves were driven extinct," he said.

In early February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to restore protections for gray wolves in western states. The agency said it concluded the animals weren't in danger of extinction under the Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of Western Watersheds and a coalition of nine other conservation groups.

Molvar believes the federal agency's decision not to re-designate western wolves as "endangered" was profoundly misguided. He said some states such as New Mexico and Colorado have adopted extra penalties for killing wolves, but the Endangered Species Act lets hunters in other states off the hook if they claim it was a case of mistaken identity.

"There were special loopholes for Wyoming, Idaho and Montana - and also parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah - so it does beg the question of how often this is happening quietly and under the radar," he explained.

In Wyoming, wolves and coyotes, which are considered predators, aren't eligible for protections under the state's animal cruelty statute. To date, the only penalty inflicted on the person shown on social media tormenting the wolf was a $250 fine by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.